I don't think so, at least in Seattle. Looking at the city breakdown, it corresponds to transit coverage and (my perception) transit friendliness. It actually s

I don't think so, at least in Seattle. Looking at the city breakdown, it corresponds to transit coverage and (my perception) transit friendliness. It actually seems to correspond inversely against income, since the transit coverage is vaguely inverse with Seattle income. This is, by the way, a strong conflict with East Coast cities in the US, where there's a decided "obese area" visible. I don't have insight into those from the ground level.